In the speak Bush held recently he used the word "civilized world" several times.

Should be all interpret this as, according to GW Bush he lives in a civilized world, and the rest of the non-america-europe-world is uncivilized?

Uncivilized as in a bunch of savages? hmmm....?

Anyhow, it is an interesting attitute from a powerful man.

Interesting, surreal, and disturbing.

Perhaps he ment that a "civilized world" was one in which terrorism doesn't take the headlines to make a country run. If terrorists can always gain power to control, extort or put fear into other people from either within their country or other countries, that would be not part of the "civilized world" as everyone knows it. If you cannot determine what he ment I am happy to enlighten you to what he means because I understand him.:)

Terrorism comes and goes. It's a relative term that doesn't mean much once you start including people who are fighting to preserve their lives and their cultures.

What Bush meant was that the USA is part of the civilised world. This means that everythign the USA does is civilised. He is attempting to redefine 'civilised' in the same way that he has redefined 'war'.

A brilliant strategist he has encouraged all terrorists everywhere to join in a global war on America. They should make potential presidents take a simple IQ test before running for the office of Most Dangerous Person in the World. That'd narrow the field a bit.

Again you seem to miss the point that Mr. Bush was trying to explain. I'll try once more to try to help you "see the light" as it were.

Mr. Bush thinks that terrorists are in many countries and because they run these countries wiith fear, dogma, terror, death squads and so on , he's trying to stop this from going on. If a country is run by terror then that country is going to be seen as a threat to the civilized countries that DO NOT use terror to keep control or to gain control. If your not intelligent enough to understand what terrorists do to keep people oppressed then your missing the point and I hope that this will help you see more clearly now.

If you are a terrorist you will be against what Mr. Bush is saying because you'd want him to stop trying to get rid of you and your kind. It would seem to me that any freedom loving person would want to see terrorists killed or jailed to ensure that Americans as well as other countries can live without fear or trepidation of terrorism.

Originally posted by cosmictraveler
Again you seem to miss the point that Mr. Bush was trying to explain. I'll try once more to try to help you "see the light" as it were.
Mr. Bush thinks that terrorists are in many countries and because they run these countries wiith fear, dogma, terror, death squads and so on , he's trying to stop this from going on. If a country is run by terror then that country is going to be seen as a threat to the civilized countries that DO NOT use terror to keep control or to gain control. If your not intelligent enough to understand what terrorists do to keep people oppressed then your missing the point and I hope that this will help you see more clearly now.
If you are a terrorist you will be against what Mr. Bush is saying because you'd want him to stop trying to get rid of you and your kind. It would seem to me that any freedom loving person would want to see terrorists killed or jailed to ensure that Americans as well as other countries can live without fear or trepidation of terrorism.

Geez, you wander off for a few weeks and when you get back you can't tell when the posters are being satirical...

I think we know what he meant by ""uncivilized" world, I mean you would have to a reality supressing moron to not see it. Islamic world, where is terrorism from that threatens the so called west? Islamic world, terrorism is not a world, Islam is more so then that. Of course he means them because they are heathens who blow themselves themselves up. At least that what's GWB thinks in his utterly scary simplistic worldview, which some ignorants here on sci exemplify.

"If you are a terrorist you will be against what Mr. Bush is saying because you'd want him to stop trying to get rid of you and your kind. It would seem to me that any freedom loving person would want to see terrorists killed or jailed to ensure that Americans as well as other countries can live without fear or trepidation of terrorism."

Thats interesting too... shall I take that as you cannot be sceptical to Bush without being a terrorist or at least a supporter of terrorists?

The world is not very often so black or white as the movies in hollywood sometimes states. People are not either goog guys or bad guys.

I find it hard to beleave that usa is that civilized country that does not use force or violence to archive political goals. As the superstate it is I even think there are reasons to beleave that usa has both reinforced, created and backed up "groups of politics" that today according to Bush would be nothing but terrorists.

Its hard to both eat the cake and still have it as they say over here.

But this might ofcourse all be conspiracy-theories...

You say "Thats interesting too... shall I take that as you cannot be sceptical to Bush without being a terrorist or at least a supporter of terrorists?"


Being sceptical would be saying that Mr. Bush WASN'T getting the terrorists off of the worlds back and letting them do as they please. If Mr. Bush WASN'T doing his job right , then I would be sceptical but it seems he is doing the right thing by going after these terrorists as best he can.

Why are these people throwing themselves at us with bombs strapped to their chests? We say they are uncivilized because they do this, yet do you think they would do so if they had cruise missles? Would they kill themselves in this manner if they could sit in the cockpit of an F-16 and drop bombs on us? Are they uncivilized or just poor - fighting what they view as a desperate war against desperate odds? While I think the reasoning used by any fundamentalist is flawed (definitely including Christianity), I can still respect their defiance in the face of overwhelming odds. How many Americans do you know that are willing to die for a cause? I do not know many.

My only problem is the fact that Bush keeps invoking God. Then he and the rest of America find it hard to understand why the Muslum peoples are making this into a holy war.

Do not get me wrong, I am not a sympathizer. I just want to look at both sides of the story. To someone who believed that American's are evil for worshipping money, and are afraid that we might influence their children, I can understand how economic targets could be considered valid military targets.

- KitNyx

Mr. Bush is creating the biggest wave of terror that the world has ever seen. He's a damn fool oilman who should get out more and gain some understanding of the world.

After 9/11 the USA had widespread world sympathy (for the first time in a long time). What does Bush do? Make anti-US terrorism a global rallying cry, increase recruitment of terrorists tenfold, and set off a chain reaction of civil tragedies. He doesn't seem to realise that vast numbers of people across the world, civilised and uncivilised, see the US as a the biggest and most destabilising threat to civilisation that there is.

I don't mean to needlessly offend USA-philes here, but the idea that the USA is a civilised country is a little absurd. Do people living there really think that other nations believe it is a civilised country?

England only just remains a civilised society and I doubt if it will be for much longer, (ignorance and moronic consumerism is just as well taught and promoted here in the name of a compliant and flexible workforce), but at least we can't cause so much global damage.

The USA could be a force for good, but as long as it's run by industrially sponsored politicians with the shallow culture and intellect of GWB and his cronies I'm not holding my breath.

I remember where I was when I saw the 9/11 events unfolding. In a business meeting with seven managers from two companies. Despite feelings of horror and sympathy not one person there was surprised that it was happening. All agreed that it was inevitable given American foreign policy, so inevitable that we didn't even discuss the cause of it, we all felt we knew.

Apart from 9/11, can anyone here describe at least one other Islamist backed major terrorist attack anywhere in USA or Europe over the last 10 years?

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that even after the declared 'War on terrorism', the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq; there has not been one incident of terrorist retaliation in the West?

Isn't it strange that the convenient bogeymen Bin Laden and Hussein are still at large, even after so much destruction and misery has been caused to millions of innocents in the chasing of them?

Do most Iraqis have reason to believe that US and Britain are civilised? Are they living in a world without terror now that Hussein's been toppled, or are they fighting the new monsters in their midst?

Cosmictraveler"
If a country is run by terror then that country is going to be seen as a threat to the civilized countries that DO NOT use terror to keep control or to gain control
Seems to me that the USA is run by terror. Keep the people afraid and you can keep the people behind you.

Originally posted by MacZ
Cosmictraveler"

Seems to me that the USA is run by terror. Keep the people afraid and you can keep the people behind you.
Good point. Over-playing external threats has always been used by governments as an excuse for whatever they want to do.

Latest News
___________
Allies ' losing war on terror'

The US and her allies are losing the war on terror, with al Qaida growing in power, a British academic claims.

A report for the Oxford Research Group by Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University said that more than 350 people have been killed in attacks linked to al Qaida since September 11.

Rather than military action succeeding in crippling the terror group, al Qaida has rallied its efforts, said Prof Rogers.

[© Copyright 2003, Press Association
________________

Well there's a surprise.

Hmm.. how many non-us people has been killed by the "coalition" since 9/11 ?

C'mon now, give me a fair guess

At least 10,000. I mean civilians. Soldiers and terrorist dont apparently count.

Originally posted by guthrie
At least 10,000. I mean civilians. Soldiers and terrorist dont apparently count.
That's only in Iraq. You're forgetting Afghanistan.

I thought iraqbody count only had around 7,000 civilians. I then added on the at least 3,000 from Afghanistan. Not sure why i'm using the conservative estimates here. If youve got more up to date ones would you mind posting them?

The important thing also is to remember that each dead person will leave, well, I dont know, anything from none to 10 or more, relatives who are rather annoyed.

Sorry everybody, I have to do it...

Well, I am an American. I believe in everything that America ideally stood for; capitalism, democracy, and freedom/ equality for all. In fact, in my younger days, I took a vow to to uphold and protect the Constitution of the US from all enemies foreign AND domestic. Now, Americans seem to believe more in socialism and totalalitarianism than capitalism and democracy. As long as the people in charge promise to give them money back (tax refund), the people of America will sit down, shut up, close their eyes, and put their hands over their ears. I think it is sick. If asked, I would say that I think the way America is running today is bordering on unconstitutional. The rights and freedoms that we fought so hard for are now being stripped away one by one in the name of security. Well, as far as I am concerned if we have to destroy what made America great in order to be secure, I would prefer to be insecure. If we have to destroy what made America great in order to feel secure than the terrorists have won. They have instilled terror in the heart of America.

I am an American and although I am ashamed at the direction our government is going, I refuse to give up on her (America). I do not think the situation is irreversable and I hope one day to have a voice loud enough that the powers that be will be able to hear me in their ivory tower.

- KitNyx

KitNyx - Bravely said.

Is it possible that the problem is that democracy doesn't work on large scales?

You could be right, canute. Once the system involves delegation, and you dont personally know most of the people involved, its all to easy to lose any control. But then, what else can we have if we want a technological and advanced society? Or rather, what reasonable alternative do you have?

Me, i want more direct democracy. And more decentralisation of gvt. But to some extent that would impact upon technological development and on work etc. Blair has merely carried on what Thatcher did, in fact what has been the drive for the past century or two.

the united states of europe... a horrofying thought...

I've thought about that. I am also wondering if perhaps our system for holding and counting elections is outdated, and I am fairly certain it is not foolproof. Oh one point I forgot to mention America is quickly becoming a goverment of big business, by big business, and for big business, I think it is time to return the power to the people - Seperation of Big Business (including church) and State.

Another Idea:
I am not sure how familiar you are with US history, but I am beginning to believe more in states rights. In a system that has the central government responsable for people can live where there is a system in place that provides what they need. For instance: Minnesota could provide 0 in the way of welfare, instead putting all that money into education. Illinois could have a low budget education system, but lots of welfare. Abortion could be banned in Iowa, but selling fetuses for cash is allowed in California. As long as the US government enforced a policy stating that legal decisions made in one state are still official in any other. I am not advocating another civil war, but it might be an idea for us to look into trying legally (following constitutional methods). The central government would then be responsable for federal programs, the military, and issues that deal specifically with the Constitution. I would also create a special agency within the Judicial branch with no power, but who's responability it would be to advise the executive and legislative branches on the constitutionality of their actions and report it back to the people.

- KitNyx

I wonder if I am now on some FBI warning list as an antagonist? or a partisan?

- KitNyx

Originally posted by guthrie
You could be right, canute. Once the system involves delegation, and you dont personally know most of the people involved, its all to easy to lose any control. But then, what else can we have if we want a technological and advanced society? Or rather, what reasonable alternative do you have?

Me, i want more direct democracy. And more decentralisation of gvt. But to some extent that would impact upon technological development and on work etc. Blair has merely carried on what Thatcher did, in fact what has been the drive for the past century or two.
I sort of agree - levels of population force a certain style of hi-tech wealth creating governent on us, designed only to stretch resources as far as they'll go. Maggie, for all of her faults, had some integrity and a sense of history and continuity. Blair is pulling the whole thing apart. Still, I suppose it's a matter of opinion.

I don't want a 'technological' society. In fact I can't really see the point of one. However I agree with you about wanting an advanced one.

Originally posted by KitNyx
I wonder if I am now on some FBI warning list as an antagonist? or a partisan?

- KitNyx
Everything is monitored for keywords. At GCHQ in the UK. I think you're Ok as long as you don't mention SEMTEX.

Whoops.